Civil Law, Common Law Distinctions and How That Affects Attorneys Transitioning Internationally
In addition to the procedural requirements attorneys must comply with in order to become licensed in different countries and jurisdictions, attorneys interested in making this transition must also become familiar with the new country's legal system.
November 19, 2019 at 10:12 AM
5 minute read
As the world becomes increasingly connected, many attorneys chose to leave their home countries to become licensed attorneys and practice law in other jurisdictions. In addition to the procedural requirements attorneys must comply with in order to become licensed in different countries and jurisdictions, attorneys interested in making this transition must also become familiar with the new country's legal system. Firstly, it is essential for attorneys to understand the difference between the two dominant systems of the law, civil and common law, as these systems represent different ways of achieving justice. Additionally, to understand the distinctions between both systems and its implications is imperative not only to attorneys who intend to practice law across borders, but also to law firms seeking to operate and represent clients internationally.
Importantly, civil law and common law are the two main legal systems around the world. Currently, about 150 countries, and the Province of Quebec, Canada, adopt the civil law system, including China, Brazil, Germany, and France, whereas about 80 countries chose the common law, including the United States, England and Canada—excluding Quebec. The most notorious difference between the two systems is that common law is primarily based on judicial precedents, where prior judicial decisions hold primary importance, while in civil law, codified statutes prevail. In practice, however, many countries adopt a mixture of the features from both systems.
Moreover, there are also differences between the responsibilities of lawyers and judges in each system. More specifically, in civil law, judges are much more active in conducting cases, as they serve as investigators, taking the lead in legal proceedings, while lawyers represent the interests of their clients, but are more focused in rendering legal advice, and drafting legal pleadings. In common law, however, lawyers have more control of their cases, as they examine witnesses themselves. Consequentially, in both systems, attorneys and judges present indispensable roles, but they involve different responsibilities.
Furthermore, the creation of laws in common and civil law systems also vary. Specifically, in common law systems, judges are more involved in the creation of laws, as the decisions from a court are binding for future cases. Meanwhile, in civil law systems, the laws are mainly created by the legislators, and do not place much emphasis on precedent, but on the codification of the law. Notwithstanding these distinctions, considerable convergence has been taking place between common and civil law, as common law countries have been giving more significance to statutory law, whereas civil law countries have been emphasizing the importance of case law.
Noticeably, the difference in the dynamics of case laws and codified laws in each jurisdiction is reflected on how laws are taught in each system. For instance, in American law schools, courses are ordinarily taught based on the reading of cases decided by the highest courts of the country, which are binding for future cases, from which students and professors discuss what principles of law originated from such cases. Conversely, in law schools from civil law countries, statutes and codified laws play a much major role, as the statutes and codes dictate what the law is, and law professors present lectures explaining how each statute applies to certain facts. Hence, each system essentially presents opposite paths, as common law students and attorneys study cases in order to determine the applicable rules, while civil law students and attorneys study codified statutes to understand how those rules apply.
Also relevant are the differences between notaries in civil and common law jurisdictions. Specifically, in civil law jurisdictions, notaries are, ordinarily, qualified lawyers, who, besides authenticating and certifying signatures and documents, may also prepare legal documents and render legal advice. In most common law jurisdictions, however, notaries, as they are known in the civil law do not exist. In order to be a notary in a common law jurisdiction, a higher education is not required and notaries hold a secretarial function only, being usually prohibited from drafting legal documents or offering legal advice.
Nevertheless, although case law, attorneys and judges, may present different features in each legal system, there are skills that lawyers from both systems commonly possess. Most importantly, one major conception of legal professionals is that attorneys are able to "think like lawyers," i.e., they understand the sense of justice, how the judicial system relates to accomplishing justice, and how the law works as a guarantor of rights and enforcer of duties. Consequentially, there are many skills that attorneys develop that apply to both systems, namely, the ability of identifying legal issues, explaining issues to clients in nonlegal terms, applying the laws to the facts of each case, and understanding and identifying the crux of each case and argument. Likewise, other abilities such as negotiation, analytical and problem solving skills are also essential for attorneys regardless of the jurisdiction in which they practice.
Ross Manella is a partner and Livia Vieira is a law clerk with Hinshaw & Culbertson in Fort Lauderdale.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250